Sri Kamal De, President
FINAL ORDER
The present dispute emanates over repudiation of Complainant’s insurance claim by the OP Insurer.
In short, case of the Complainant, is that he insured his motor cycle being no. WB-30K-4574 with the OP Insurer vide Policy No. 3005/24436976/10229/000 which was valid for the period from 26-09-2014 to mid night of 25-09-2015. It is the case of the Complainant that the said insured motor cycle got stolen around 8.30 P.M. on 18-03-2015 at Goura Bazar under P.S. Daspur. It is claimed by the Complainant that the OP No. 2 was apprised of the matter then and there over phone, who in turn intimated the matter to OP No. 1. The Complainant also claimed to have reported the matter to Daspur P.S. on 19-03-2015, who, according to the Complainant, started necessary case being no. 71/2015 u/s 379, IPC on 24-03-2015. It is alleged by the Complainant that the OP No. 2 arbitrarily repudiated his claim by a letter dated 15-06-2015. Hence, this case.
The OP No. 1, on notice, appeared before this Forum and contested the case by filing W.V. It also took a positive part in the entire proceedings. It is contended by the OP No. 1 that the Complainant did not park the vehicle in the parking place. It also denied that the Complainant intimated the OP No. 2 about the incident over phone or that this OP was apprised of the matter by the OP No. 2. This OP has also taken umbrage of the fact that the Complainant reported the matter of alleged theft to the Police Station on 24-03-2015 although in terms of the policy, the Complainant was supposed to report it to the police authority forthwith. It is stated by the OP No. 1 that the Complainant reported the matter to it after 10 days from the date of occurrence of alleged incident which itself is also a gross violation of policy terms and conditions. As such, the claim was rightly repudiated by it.
Point for consideration
- Whether the OPs were justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to claim, as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos. 1&2:
Both these points are taken up together for the purpose of convenience of discussion.
On a glance through the repudiation letter dated 15-06-2015, it appears that Complainant’s claim was repudiated on the solitary ground of delayed intimation to the Police Authority and the Insurer. It appears from the afore mentioned repudiation letter that in terms of the insurance policy, in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of claim under the policy, the Insured is required to give immediate notice to the Police. It is also transpired from the said letter that it is obligatory on the part of an Insuree to issue due notice in writing to the Insurer immediately upon occurrence of any accidental loss, for any claim.
It is claimed by the Complainant that immediate intimation was given to the OP No. 2 over phone and the latter informed the matter to the OP No. 1. In this regard it is worth noting that according to the Complainant, the incident of theft took place around 8.30 p.m. One wonders, if the working hours of any company stretches so long. That apart, such claim of the Complainant is not seconded by the OP No. 2, nor the Complainant has put forth any credible proof to drive home his contention in this regard. Be that as it may, fact remains that in terms of the insurance policy, immediate notice in writing was required to be given by the Insuree, but we do not come across any cogent document to enable us ascertain the veracity of Complainant’s claim in this regard.
In order to prove his claim that the police was intimated about the incident on the very next day, i.e., on 19-03-2015, Complainant has furnished photocopy of a letter of the said date purported to have been written by him. Perusal of the same, however, reveals that the same does not contain any official seal or signature of the personnel of concerned Police Station. Even to our utter surprise, we find that in the original F.I.R. before the Daspur P.S. dated 24-03-2015, the Complainant did not utter a single word as regards submission of any complaint beforehand.
In the formal F.I.R., we also find the reporting time and date of incident is 12.15 hrs. on 24.03.2015.
As we all know when any F.I.R. is received in a P.S., case starts immediately and we get a detailed reflection of date and time of occurrence, case no. etc., in original F.I.R. and in the entries in formal F.I.R. duly filled in by the P.S. We also have nothing of the sort forthcoming to us that any complaint was lodged by the complainant at the concerned P.S. on 19.03.2015, as alleged, or any case was started dtd. 19.09.2015, or even prior to 24.03.2015. Even in a case of G.D., the G.D. no. is furnished from P.S. we afraid the complainant could not file any document to show that even general diary was registered on 19.03.2015 over the incident. No extract of G.D. entry is also forthcoming to us from the side of the complainant in this regard. So we can safely hold that the complainant did not inform about the incident to the police or P.S. prior to 24.03.2015. We are afraid we cannot place any reliance upon the photocopy of the letter dtd. 19.03.2015 purported to have been written by the complainant.
Section 379 of IPC is a cognizable offence. It becomes completely difficult to believe that if the incident of theft was reported to P.S. on 19.03.2015, case was started on 24.03.2015 being Daspur P.S. case no. 71/15 dtd. 24.03.2015 u/s 379 of I.P.C. Immediate information to police is very much vital as per policy condition. We are afraid we cannot hold that OPs have any deficiency of service on the point as stated above. We find that the complainant lodged the intimation as regards theft to Daspur P.S. on 24.03.2015 after a delay of 7 days from the date of theft of the insured stolen motor cycle.
We find that the Investigator of Insurance Co. vide a letter dated 21-04-2015 sought to know from the Complainant about the reason behind delayed information to the police. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Complainant disputed such assertion of the Investigator by any counter letter.
So, on a deeper thought into the caustic controversy in this regard, it appears that the Complainant has miserably failed to establish the factum of providing immediate notice either to the Police Authority or the Insurer. There is also no explanation in the FIR as to why the complainant became delayed for 7 days in lodging the FIR. The inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained either in the FIR or in the petition of complaint. There is also no explanation as to why the complainant was delayed for 7 days in reporting the matter to the insured.
As we know, in theft related cases, time is the essence to intercept a stolen vehicle. We find that due to the lackadaisical approach of the Complainant, crucial time was lost; thereby any possibility of recovery of the insured car too faded away. In our considered opinion, therefore, the Complainant cannot be absolved of his share of responsibility for non-recovery of the said motor cycle.
Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble National Commission have consistently upheld the view that delay in notifying the matter of theft to the Police and the Insurer in respect of motor vehicle policies is fatal to the claim. A case in point is the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company v. Parvesh Chander Chadha in Civil Appeal No. 6739 of 2010 wherein the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to hold as under:-
“On account of delayed intimation, the appellant was deprived of its legitimate right to get an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same”.
The Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of New India Assurance Company vs. Trilochan Jane [FA No. 321/2005] observed as follows:
“In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the policy as it deprives the insurer of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle”.
In fact, in the above referred case, a delay of 2 days in lodging the FIR and the delay of 9 days in reporting the matter to the Insurance Company was found fatal, and claim was negated by the Hon’ble Court.
Taking a cue from the solemn decisions of Hon’ble Courts as aforesaid, as also in the light of our foregoing discussion and thoughtful consideration to the material on record, we do not find any infirmity with the decision of OP No. 1, who repudiated the Complainant’s claim over breach of policy condition.
Accordingly, these two points are decided against the Complainant.
Consequent thereof, the instant case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
that C. C. No. 78/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex parte against OP No. 2, but without any order as to costs.
